The Parchments of Treaty and other Parchments
The Parchments of Treaty and other Parchments
The criticism of the parchments of treaty by rival journalists, legal and political commentators; and the rejection of them by Goveror Bourke in Sydney should be put in to the nexus of the rival mentalités in the historical perspective. The Treaty of Dutigalla came out of the thoughtful context of many years of rebuffed hope and the spiritual dissatisfactions among Gellibrand and Associates both in respect to the treatment of men, whether aborigines or felons, and of land tenure. The rejection had in some sense been anticipated, and the fact that the treaty documents were conveyed directly to England meant that Gellibrand was attempting to go over the heads of the party spirits under narrow rules in the letter-of-the-law minded and petty literalism of the hard-hearted, bleak-souled prison colonies. This context, most pertinently, includes Gellibrand’s own early rejection of the Crown Grants of Land in VDL. As far previous as 1831, at the biggest public Meeting then to be held in the VDL colony, addressing the King on his accession to the throne, Gellibrand said:
“When I was interrupted[1] I was about to address you on the subject of land tenure... Can a greater grievance be imagined than the last six years, no title has been given to one single grant of land... Is it not a grievous evil that all the parchments which have hitherto been issued, are of doubtful validity. Perhaps it is the better way to state the plain fact, that they are utterly worthless, and not worth the parchment on which they are written.”[2]
The subsequent historical interest in the actual parchments of the treaty of Dutigalla, even after, and though, they were rejected, has been a strong force, [and one, I suggest: of the romance, the thrill of otherness, and of the transcultural mystery tasted in the fruit of this cross-cultural coup], and in every generation since! even in the cynical historians and detractors! speaks of the truth of a human interest in these beginnings, far greater than the ordinary worth or worthlessness of any land tenure parchments of more commonplace legality.
[1] By his public enemy and legal nemesis Solicitor-General Mr. Alfred Stephen which resulted a public howl. “... upon Mr Steven again rising , a strong feeling of disapprobation was exhibited. Mr Stephen however continued speaking, but all we could collect was (much hissing and other noise prevailing) that he would not be put down. This ... only called forth an increased expression of the public opinion.” Later: “Mr Gellibrand’s address was received with great applause.’ The Tasmanian May 28 1831
[2] The Tasmanian, May 28 1831 pp 164
The criticism of the parchments of treaty by rival journalists, legal and political commentators; and the rejection of them by Goveror Bourke in Sydney should be put in to the nexus of the rival mentalités in the historical perspective. The Treaty of Dutigalla came out of the thoughtful context of many years of rebuffed hope and the spiritual dissatisfactions among Gellibrand and Associates both in respect to the treatment of men, whether aborigines or felons, and of land tenure. The rejection had in some sense been anticipated, and the fact that the treaty documents were conveyed directly to England meant that Gellibrand was attempting to go over the heads of the party spirits under narrow rules in the letter-of-the-law minded and petty literalism of the hard-hearted, bleak-souled prison colonies. This context, most pertinently, includes Gellibrand’s own early rejection of the Crown Grants of Land in VDL. As far previous as 1831, at the biggest public Meeting then to be held in the VDL colony, addressing the King on his accession to the throne, Gellibrand said:
“When I was interrupted[1] I was about to address you on the subject of land tenure... Can a greater grievance be imagined than the last six years, no title has been given to one single grant of land... Is it not a grievous evil that all the parchments which have hitherto been issued, are of doubtful validity. Perhaps it is the better way to state the plain fact, that they are utterly worthless, and not worth the parchment on which they are written.”[2]
The subsequent historical interest in the actual parchments of the treaty of Dutigalla, even after, and though, they were rejected, has been a strong force, [and one, I suggest: of the romance, the thrill of otherness, and of the transcultural mystery tasted in the fruit of this cross-cultural coup], and in every generation since! even in the cynical historians and detractors! speaks of the truth of a human interest in these beginnings, far greater than the ordinary worth or worthlessness of any land tenure parchments of more commonplace legality.
[1] By his public enemy and legal nemesis Solicitor-General Mr. Alfred Stephen which resulted a public howl. “... upon Mr Steven again rising , a strong feeling of disapprobation was exhibited. Mr Stephen however continued speaking, but all we could collect was (much hissing and other noise prevailing) that he would not be put down. This ... only called forth an increased expression of the public opinion.” Later: “Mr Gellibrand’s address was received with great applause.’ The Tasmanian May 28 1831
[2] The Tasmanian, May 28 1831 pp 164
posted by Wayne D Knoll | 5:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home